Quote from: ForgottenF on June 27, 2024, 12:03:43 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 27, 2024, 08:29:50 AMEvery WotC supported setting is just a regurgitation of the same things again and again to the point you could mostly define the entire place with a map and what singular trivial element of each race is different (i.e. this time the Halflings live in small communities on the rivers instead of in The Shire or maybe they live on the plains and ride dinosaurs; and the Drow... because every setting must have drow now... are primitives on the Isle of Giants).

WOTC has painted themselves into this creative corner, due to their desire for marketing purposes to have all of their race/class options be playable in all settings.

In fairness, this can be kind of a difficult trap to write your way out of. I often see fantasy settings with unique races and find myself thinking "OK, but you just re-skinned elves, dwarfs and halflings, so what was the point?". I've even seen the reskinning allegation leveled at the Legend of Zelda, with its Zoras, Gorons and Kokiri, though I wouldn't necessarily agree.

Quote from: SHARK on June 27, 2024, 10:02:52 AMAll of the frustration and chewing about "I want original worlds and true creativity! Something that breaks away from the Tolkien bubble!" is actually the lament of a distinct minority. The fact is, Talislanta came out in the 1980's. Before that, there was another outstanding and creative game world--Arduin. Both were failures. That was some 40 years ago, and the dynamic has carried through every decade, including the present. The majority *want* Tolkien-Bubble recycles. That's the deep truth, my friend.

The pattern I've seen in my time with the RPG world is that there is a demand for more out-there and creative concepts, but they have a hard time sticking. You see complaints like Chris' (with which I hugely sympathize) all the time. I believe there's even a TV Tropes entry for "my elves are different". Most DMs go through a phase of trying to make their homebrew settings as unlike classic D&D as possible, but inevitably they always go back to the Tolkien/Gygax standards after a while.

I tend to attribute this to the limitations of the medium. I'm sure I've said this before, but the big difficulty with RPG world-building is getting 4-6 people around the table to all imagine close enough to the same thing. If as a DM you try to describe things to your players that they aren't already familiar with, you up the chances of confusion at the table, and increase the amount of game time you have to spend on exposition. When non-standard fantasy settings are successful, it's usually by importing other extremely well known tropes from horror, scifi or history.

I suspect that if Talislanta had been introduced to the world via a visual medium like a videogame or comic book, it would have had an easier time getting traction. I browse the Roll20 listings from time to time, and there is almost always someone running a One Piece campaign. One Piece is one of the zaniest and most original fantasy settings out there today, but it has 20+ years of comics, movies, TV and videogames out there to explicate its world, and which anyone signing up for that game is going to be familiar with.

Greetings!

Yes, my friend, quite right! I remember Talislanta's famous marketing tagline--"NO ELVES!" *Laughing* Talislanta was absolutely creative, fresh, and very much *not* in the traditional, Tolkien bubble. But you know what? Exactly. My players were momentarily intrigued--but ultimately, they balked at Talislanta. Why? Not identifiable. Too many weirdly coloured races, strange animal races, offbeat, mystical religions. They simply could not get into it.

Hell, you don't even have to imagine a Fantasy world to get that kind of rejection. NYAMBE, an awesome D&D game setting for 3E, was entirely set in an African-like setting. You could, of course, make Nyambe part of any world you desired. You could run entire campaigns with Nyambe Characters, set in the Nyambe setting. Very innovative, creative, and different.

Nyambe also *failed* pretty hard. The Ars Magica company, the Nephew people, the owners, originally embraced publishing Nyambe with lots of fanfare and applause. Within a year or two, Nyambe was unplugged and died. Why? Lack of sales. No one wanted to buy Nyambe or play games in Nyambe. They did Nyambe up good, too. Hardcover book, full colour, maps, great layout, all the good stuff. Yes, I bought it cheerfully. Fantastic book, awesome options, creativity, and all the while being *different*--while also familiar, as it was D&D. Still, sadly, Nyambe failed. And Nyambe, being set in an African setting--everyone was BLACK, or perhaps a non-human animal race. All the Humans were BLACK though! *Laughing* Where were all the legions of Woke Liberals buying up NYAMBE? That's right. They all yawned at it, and said we want to be in White Supremacist Tolkien worlds! *Laughing*

I know. I know. It's frustrating, but yes, the vast majority of gamers want the traditional, Tolkien Bubble. As you said, only a few niche games can avoid doing that and keep the lights on. Science Fiction, Gummy Bears Walking With Mommy, whatever.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

There was also that Spears of the Dawn setting in a mythical Africa, which I believed tanked and is considered borderline Problematic by the current culture gestapo.

Is it the addition new stuff that caused these failures or just the lack of Tolkien elements?

Would a sword and sorcery setting  fail as well?

It's also possible that Nyambe just got lost in the massive glut of D20 product. 

Quote from: SHARK on June 27, 2024, 10:02:52 AMAll of the frustration and chewing about "I want original worlds and true creativity! Something that breaks away from the Tolkien bubble!" is actually the lament of a distinct minority. The fact is, Talislanta came out in the 1980's. Before that, there was another outstanding and creative game world--Arduin. Both were failures. That was some 40 years ago, and the dynamic has carried through every decade, including the present. The majority *want* Tolkien-Bubble recycles.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 27, 2024, 12:03:43 PMI tend to attribute this to the limitations of the medium. I'm sure I've said this before, but the big difficulty with RPG world-building is getting 4-6 people around the table to all imagine close enough to the same thing. If as a DM you try to describe things to your players that they aren't already familiar with, you up the chances of confusion at the table, and increase the amount of game time you have to spend on exposition. When non-standard fantasy settings are successful, it's usually by importing other extremely well known tropes from horror, scifi or history.

I broadly agree that settings like Talislanta are blips compared to standard D&D. The most successful other games are mostly licensed properties like Call of Cthulhu and Star Wars, where the players can all imagine based on the familiar elements of those worlds that they already know.

It seems like RPGs have a very strong network effect, which is what has kept D&D on top. The more that people can drop into a different D&D game easily, the stronger the network becomes. The whole network becomes more popular and grows if they can take supplements, adventures, and other material from one game and drop them into another. Players like it if they can join without learning new rules, and play their favorite race and class.

I think WotC has been very successful in feeding into the network effect in marketing:

• Only having one ruleset instead of TSR's two lines (B/X and advanced).
• Encouraging other developers to feed into their network via D20 and the OGL.
• Having settings with the same rules and the same core elements (races, classes, monsters) as much as possible.

Just because the network is popular, though, isn't an endorsement of either D&D or WotC. Personally, I played D&D as a youth, and occasionally dabbled in it over the decades, but most of my gaming has been unrelated to D&D. I've played 5E the most of any edition, but it was always just one of several options.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 27, 2024, 12:03:43 PMWOTC has painted themselves into this creative corner, due to their desire for marketing purposes to have all of their race/class options be playable in all settings.

In fairness, this can be kind of a difficult trap to write your way out of. I often see fantasy settings with unique races and find myself thinking "OK, but you just re-skinned elves, dwarfs and halflings, so what was the point?".

This is true.

In my opinion; D&D would be a stronger game if it picked a single setting, and developed it's in-game lore around that rather than than the current model; Where they pretend that they are a "universal" fantasy RPG.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 27, 2024, 08:29:50 AMThe real source of "Orcs are coded black" is probably someone from WotC/Hasbro's own marketing department looking for a way to stir up some controversy/virtue signaling points for free advertising.

At this point, I really don't think that they are consciously doing 'outrage marketing' of any kind. If they ever truly were.

In my opinion; everyone at Wotc are true believers, and they think what they are putting out for public consumption is actually good...

Quote from: SHARK on June 27, 2024, 10:02:52 AMAll of the frustration and chewing about "I want original worlds and true creativity! Something that breaks away from the Tolkien bubble!" is actually the lament of a distinct minority. The fact is, Talislanta came out in the 1980's. Before that, there was another outstanding and creative game world--Arduin. Both were failures. That was some 40 years ago, and the dynamic has carried through every decade, including the present. The majority *want* Tolkien-Bubble recycles. That's the deep truth, my friend.

It is possible to have creativity even within that bubble.

The mainstream popularity of The Witcher (video games and books), and Game of Thrones (books and tv Shows) IP are proofs of concept that if you come up with a good enough hook; people will want to "play" in your sandbox.

The inability of the RPG industry to translate either of them to playable games is more of a comment on the people behind those games that the IP's themselves.

Also worth noting that both of those IP are far less "kitchen sink' than core D&D.

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 27, 2024, 03:52:09 PMWould a sword and sorcery setting  fail as well?

With the usual caveat that no one can agree on what "sword and sorcery" actually means, no. Howard's Hyborean Age is a perennial favorite RPG setting, I think largely because it is also full of very recognizable tropes. The same is true for the Lovecraft Mythos. Unimaginable horrors they might be, but at this point pretty much every gamer knows what Mi-Go, Deep Ones, Cthulhu, Elder Things, Nightgaunts and Nyarlathotep are.

However, I don't think human-only fantasy settings will ever be as successful as ones with player races. It might not run to my preferences, but it's a fact that getting to play some kind of fantastical creature is a huge appeal for a lot of players.

Quote from: SHARK on June 27, 2024, 02:35:30 PMMy players were momentarily intrigued--but ultimately, they balked at Talislanta. Why? Not identifiable. Too many weirdly coloured races, strange animal races, offbeat, mystical religions. They simply could not get into it.

Yeah, most players are pretty lazy when it comes to setting lore. They don't want to do a bunch of reading to get their head around a unique setting. They'd much rather be told "oh in this setting the elves breath water", and then make the same character they've been making for years.   

Quote from: Jaeger on June 27, 2024, 04:46:53 PMIn my opinion; D&D would be a stronger game if it picked a single setting, and developed it's in-game lore around that rather than than the current model; Where they pretend that they are a "universal" fantasy RPG.

Artistically, yes. Commercially? I'm not sure. The illusion of being a universal fantasy game where you can run any setting your imagination can cook up is a big part of D&D's appeal. Admitting that it isn't might invite someone else to take up that mantle and cut into their marketshare.

Quote from: Jaeger on June 27, 2024, 04:46:53 PMThe mainstream popularity of The Witcher (video games and books), and Game of Thrones (books and tv Shows) IP are proofs of concept that if you come up with a good enough hook; people will want to "play" in your sandbox.

I'm not sure that in either of those cases the setting is core to the appeal. Certainly not with GoT. What the fans talk about with that is more the characters and the melodrama. Shear those away and I don't think there'd be much left that people cared about. The Witcher is a bit more complicated, in that you do hear fans talk about the setting a bit,  but I still think the real attachment is to the characters. CD Projekt originally intended to let the players make a custom character in the first Witcher game before deciding to resurrect Geralt, and the success of the games arguably bears out that decision.

Conversely, I think Blizzard missed a trick by not putting out an official Warcraft tabletop game sometime around 2007 when WoW was riding high. Obviously they make enough money from videogames to not give a shit, but if the rules were good, they might have been the big winners of the 4th edition debacle rather than Paizo.

Quote from: jhkim on June 27, 2024, 04:46:16 PMIt seems like RPGs have a very strong network effect, which is what has kept D&D on top. The more that people can drop into a different D&D game easily, the stronger the network becomes. The whole network becomes more popular and grows if they can take supplements, adventures, and other material from one game and drop them into another.

That's certainly true. Relative to something like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, D&D has the additional advantage that the license has rarely changed hands, giving it a continuous publication run and rules continuity those other big settings don't have. Call of Cthulhu has it, but Lovecraftian detective gaming was always going to be more niche than fantasy adventure.

D&D has also benefited hugely from the fact that most of its core elements are not copywriteable. It means that D&D has frequently been ripped off over the years, but the copycats actually benefit D&D's long term lifespan. Some kid whose only experience of fantasy comes from Warcraft or Skyrim can still join a 5e Forgotten Realms campaign and not need any of the major concepts explained to them.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 27, 2024, 08:49:15 PMConversely, I think Blizzard missed a trick by not putting out an official Warcraft tabletop game sometime around 2007 when WoW was riding high.

I have a WoW RPG copyright 2003. I've not played it, could be crap, but they did try.

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 27, 2024, 10:45:18 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 27, 2024, 08:49:15 PMConversely, I think Blizzard missed a trick by not putting out an official Warcraft tabletop game sometime around 2007 when WoW was riding high.

I have a WoW RPG copyright 2003. I've not played it, could be crap, but they did try.

I never played it but i heard the lore in it was actually really cool but got decanonized as more WoW expansions came out.

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 27, 2024, 10:45:18 PMI have a WoW RPG copyright 2003. I've not played it, could be crap, but they did try.

It was not terrible as its own thing but it didn't have much to do with WoW mechanically.

The only good orc is a dead orc.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 27, 2024, 08:49:15 PMI'm not sure that in either of those cases the setting is core to the appeal. Certainly not with GoT. What the fans talk about with that is more the characters and the melodrama. Shear those away and I don't think there'd be much left that people cared about. The Witcher is a bit more complicated, in that you do hear fans talk about the setting a bit,  but I still think the real attachment is to the characters. CD Projekt originally intended to let the players make a custom character in the first Witcher game before deciding to resurrect Geralt, and the success of the games arguably bears out that decision.

As a counterpoint; The virtual evergreen popularity of the Star Wars RPG's. Which has very popular and beloved characters in it. (Original Trilogy...) And very thread bare setting info for GM's in the core books.

I would argue that if you are only pulling setting info from the original trilogy, that you can still run a fun and long campaign. (I've done it.)

Star Wars as an RPG setting is entirely based on the hook of being a group of adventurers getting into trouble in the star wars universe as rebels or ne'er do wells; Because it sounds cool...

If your "setting" has a cool setup and hook, people will want to play in your sandbox.

In my opinion; The Witcher is better RPG material than GoT, and R.Tal really missed a chance to have something meaningful in their stable other than Cyberpunk.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 27, 2024, 08:49:15 PMHowever, I don't think human-only fantasy settings will ever be as successful as ones with player races. It might not run to my preferences, but it's a fact that getting to play some kind of fantastical creature is a huge appeal for a lot of players.

While I agree, I also don't think that the fantasy settings need to be overrun with fantastical races either.

Data released by the Baulders gate 3  people, and D&D beyond show that The human fighter is the reigning and defending champion of all times. For races it's Humans, then Elves/Half-Elves, then Dragonborne, then Tieflings, then dwarves, and everything beyond that as a kinda grab-bag.

While only two samples, I think it is not controversial to state that for a fantasy setting, you only really need 2-3 "non-human" races in your setting. And the overwhelming majority of the player base will be satisfied with the options.

While there are always those that push for essentially unlimited choices for PC races, it's now pretty obvious that they have always just been a loud but tiny minority.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 27, 2024, 08:49:15 PMConversely, I think Blizzard missed a trick by not putting out an official Warcraft tabletop game sometime around 2007 when WoW was riding high. Obviously they make enough money from videogames to not give a shit, but if the rules were good, they might have been the big winners of the 4th edition debacle rather than Paizo.

The problem Blizzard had was that there is proportionally very little crossover of video game players to RPG players. It is almost always RPG players crossing over to video games. And RPG players already have D&D...

Blizzard also did not invest in the amount of support it would take for them to establish a market presence like Baizuo had which put them in place to benefit off of 4e's failures. From Blizzards POV; the ROI just wasn't there for them when they were already making billions...

Quote from: DocJones on June 28, 2024, 05:38:58 PMThe only good orc is a dead orc.

This is great wisdom.

Quote from: yosemitemike on June 27, 2024, 04:25:06 PMIt's also possible that Nyambe just got lost in the massive glut of D20 product. 

I seem to remember it being pretty heavily pushed and well reviewed at the time, I saw quite a bit of interest in it and it was heavily featured at my FLGS. I didn't buy it either, but it wasn't invisible. That said, you're right that there was so much product with only so many dollars to go around.

Quote from: shoplifter on June 28, 2024, 06:23:54 PMI seem to remember it being pretty heavily pushed and well reviewed at the time, I saw quite a bit of interest in it and it was heavily featured at my FLGS. I didn't buy it either, but it wasn't invisible. That said, you're right that there was so much product with only so many dollars to go around.

It seemed to be one of those products that was well known and discussed on rpg forums but relatively obscure outside of the minority of people who actively participate in such forums. 

Quote from: yosemitemike on June 25, 2024, 02:40:38 PMIt's simple.  SJWs are obsessed with race so they make everything about race.  Their entire worldview revolves around race so they see everything through the lens of current year race politics whether that makes any sense or not.  It's the same reason why the sort of feminist who writes for The Mary Sue thinks anything and everything is sexist.

Pretty much this. If you're always looking for an 'enemy' you'll find one.